Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Sathaiah And Others vs B. Rajamani And Others on 27 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD301, 1999(6)ALT120
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER
1. The petitioners herein preferred the appeals under Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act against the order of eviction. The appellate Court - Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court rejected the appeals in limini on the ground that the arrears of rent determined by the Rent Controller have not been paid so far and therefore, the appeals are not maintainable by reason of the embargo contained in Section 11(4) of the Act. It is against these orders, the CRPs are filed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners -appellants denied the tenancy and set up the title of the deceased 1 st respondent as co-owner and that in this fact situation, the petitioners need not pay the rent. It is also contended that the finding as to quantum of rent payable was reached without any discussion and without proper basis. Relying on the decision of Y.Bhaxkar Rao, J., (as he then was) in Linga raju v. G.Annapurnamma, 1987 (2) APLJ 151, the learned Counsel submits that the application to deposit the rent before preferring the appeal is not absolute and the petitioner can show sufficient cause for non-deposit of rents. In these cases, it is pleaded that the circumstances pointed above, would constitute sufficient cause and the question of paying the rent when the petitioners are claiming ownership rights through the deceased first-respondent does not arise. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Tulsi Bai v. Gulab Kanzar Bai, 1978 (1) APLJ 164. It was categorically held therein that the payment of rent is a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeal and the appellant Court was justified in not numbering the appeals unless and until the rent was deposited. It was further observed that in a case where the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the finding given by the Rent Controller holds good. Even with regard to the arrears and the quantum therein, the finding of the Rent Controller holds good till it is set aside by the appellate Court. The Division Bench followed another Division Bench decision-in Khursheed Shedurv. WaheedAli, 1974(1) APLJ 294. Unfortunately, these decisions were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in the case of Lingaraju (supra). The same view as that taken by the Division Bench was reiterated by Rama Rao, J., in Vishakapatnam Women's College Society v. Sri Ramakrishna Deo, 1982 (2) APLJ 9 (SN). Apart from the fact that the Division Bench decision is binding on me, the ratio of the decision in Lingaraju's case (supra) has no application to the present case. This is not a case where the petitioners attempted to show sufficient cause for not being able to deposit the rents except asserting that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant which plea was negated by the Rent Controller Court. No other justification is given. The facts of the case dealt with by Bhaskar Rao, J., were peculiar in nature and the learned Judge inferred there from that sufficient cause was made out for non deposit of rents. Moreover, that was a case in which the appellate Court already entertained the appeal whereas here, at the threshold, an objection is taken for the maintainability of appeal, Hence, that decision does not come to the aid of the petitioners. Thus, the deposit of the arrears of rent as determined by the Rent Controller is indispensable in the present cases. It cannot be said that the appellate Court has committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the appeal in liinini. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it a fit case to grant further time to the petitioners to deposit the rents. Accordingly, three months' time is granted and in case the rents are deposited within three months' time, the appeals shall be numbered and heard expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of registration of the appeal. In the event of the failure of the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent, the orders rejecting the appeals will stand and steps can be taken for eviction.
2. There shall be stay of eviction for a period of three months. The CRPs are dismissed with the above direction.